Re: proposed changes to debian-faq
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:47:34 +0200
Holger Wansing wrote:
> Justin B Rye <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Holger Wansing wrote:
> > >> -<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands got an equivalent via
> > >> +<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands have an equivalent via
> > > I don't see the improvement here, so omitting this.
> > It's a non-native-speakerism. The current FAQ says that the commands
> > "got" (="did acquire") an equivalent. What it's trying to say is
> > that the commands "have" (="do possess") an equivalent.
> Yes, that was exactly what I wanted to say when I wrote that sentence:
> that there is a new binary named apt, introduced with Jessie, which has said
> And that's why I like the "got" :-)
you can use "got" now but you'll need to change to "have" on around 2020
or someone say you as editor, you are still living 2010's?
> > >> @@ -321,8 +321,8 @@
> > >> status symbol (explained in the header), the package name, the version
> > >> which is <em>installed</em>, and a brief description.
> > >> -<p>To learn the status of packages whose names match the string any
> > >> -pattern beginning with "foo" by executing the command:
> > >> +<p>To learn the status of packages whose names match any
> > >> +pattern beginning with "foo", run the command:
> > > Maybe we should change "learn" into something like "query" here?
> > > Justin?
no need to CC me :-)